Skip to main content

Stronger penalties needed for texting drivers says IAM

Drivers convicted of causing death by dangerous driving should be given stronger and more consistent penalties, according to road safety charity the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM). An IAM analysis of eleven recent prosecutions involving mobile and smartphone use revealed that the average sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is four-and-a-half years in prison and a disqualification from driving for seven years. In all of the cases analysed, the convicted drivers were found to have lost the
September 18, 2013 Read time: 2 mins
Drivers convicted of causing death by dangerous driving should be given stronger and more consistent penalties, according to road safety charity the 6187 Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM).

An IAM analysis of eleven recent prosecutions involving mobile and smartphone use revealed that the average sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is four-and-a-half years in prison and a disqualification from driving for seven years.  In all of the cases analysed, the convicted drivers were found to have lost their concentration due to using their mobile phone.

A British Social Attitudes survey in 2011 found that 90 per cent of respondents disagreed that it was clearly unsafe to talk on a handheld phone while, yet, since 2006, 750,000 fixed penalties have been issued to drivers for this very reason.

According to the US government website for distracted driving, 3,331 people in the US were killed in 2011 in crashes involving a distracted driver, compared to 3,267 in 2010. An additional 387,000 people were injured in motor vehicle crashes involving a distracted driver, compared to 416,000 injured in 2010.  Ten per cent of injury crashes in 2011 were reported as distraction-affected crashes.

IAM chief executive Simon Best said: “The maximum sentence available to the courts in the UK is fourteen years, so there is still scope for an even stronger road safety message that drivers who kill whilst distracted on their phones will be caught and jailed for a long time.

“The lesson here is obvious: never use your phone while driving. Whether you have a hands free kit or use loudspeaker, it doesn’t matter. Using your phone in any capacity reduces your attention from the task at hand – driving.”

For more information on companies in this article

Related Content

  • Dutch survey shows drivers are in favour of road user charging
    January 16, 2012
    'Keep it simple, stupid' is an oft-forgotten axiom but in terms of road user charging it is entirely appropriate. So says the ANWB's Ferry Smith. A couple of decades ago, it might have been largely true that the technology aspects of advanced road infrastructure were the main obstacles to deployment. However, 20 years or more of development have led to a situation where such 'obstacles' are often no more than a political fig-leaf. Area-wide Road User Charging (RUC) is a case in point; speak candidly to syst
  • Need for simpler urban tolling solutions
    January 10, 2013
    A common assumption, even amongst informed observers, is that there’s but a handful of urban charging schemes in operation around the world and scant prospect of that changing any time soon. Larger city-sized schemes such as Singapore, London and Stockholm come readily to mind but if we take a wider view and also consider urban access control and Low Emission Zones (LEZs) then the picture changes rather radically. There is a notable concentration of such schemes in Europe but worldwide the number is comfort
  • CCTV brings transit safety into view
    September 15, 2014
    David Crawford looks at camera-based vulnerable road users protection systems.Safe and efficient operation of road-based transit depends on minimising the risks of incidents involving other vehicles or vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists and passengers boarding or alighting from buses or trams. The extent and quality of the visibility available to drivers is crucial in preventing and avoiding incidents. Conventionally, they have had to rely on fairly basic equipment - essentially the human
  • Cross border enforcement a logical step
    January 30, 2012
    The logic supporting a cross-border enforcement Directive for the European Union (EU) is both detailed and compelling. The White Paper on European transport policy published in 2001 included the ambitious objective of reducing by 50 per cent by 2010 the number of people killed on the roads of the EU. But since 2005 the reduction in the number of road deaths has been slowing down: overall, the period from 2001 until 2009 saw the number of fatalities decrease by 36 per cent. According to Community indicators,